Weinstein is far from the first powerful man to attempt to use the excuse du jour, sex addiction, as an explanation and answer when sexual misconduct behaviors are exposed. Here is just a partial list of the long tradition of using a trip to sex addiction treatment as a way to attempt to appear apologetic, responsible, and ready to do one’s penance:

Ozzy Osbourne: When the rock god’s history of infidelity was exposed this year, Osbourne fled to Pine Grove treatment program, for sex addiction treatment. Pine Grove was the first, and ostensibly one of the best sex addiction treatment centers in the world. Alas, they apparently didn’t do an extensive diagnostic and rule-out process for admission, as Osbourne later admitted that he wasn’t a sex addict, but was just looking for a way to avoid problems. “I’m in a f--king band, aren’t I? There have always been groupies. I just got caught, didn’t I?” …“I don’t think I’m a f--king sex addict.”

Source: Pixabay

Anthony Weiner: The oh-so-appropriately-named former politician finally fled to sex addiction treatment in Tennessee, after the last round of allegations and exposure that he had sent explicit pictures to an underage female. At “The Recovery Ranch” treatment center, Weiner participated in equine therapy. At least he did until he had to file bankruptcy related to the extremely expensive treatment. Because sex addiction treatment is not an accepted diagnosis, it is not reimbursable by health insurance, and thus it is only usually available to those who have enough cash to afford the often $1000/day treatment. Sadly, no one told Weiner in advance that there is absolutely no evidence that equine therapy is of use in treating such problems (really, sending explicit pictures equals equine therapy?), and even worse, after 40 years of sex addiction treatment, there remains no empirical, peer-reviewed evidence that sex addiction treatment actually works.

Ted Haggard: Former Colorado minister and rabid anti-gay marriage opponent Haggard was exposed in a sex scandal with a male sex worker. He was sent to sex addiction treatment by church leaders. A few years later, Haggard gave an interview, where he stated “I’m probably what the kids call bisexual.” Sadly, Haggard is just one of many religious bisexual males who end up receiving treatment that unethically diagnoses their homosexual desires as evidence of a disorder.

Dick Morris: Former Clinton White House adviser Morris left office in shame, amidst a kinky scandal involving a sex worker, her feet, and conference calls to then-President Clinton. Morris fled, of course, to sex addiction treatment. Which apparently worked, as Morris was later one of the first to call out Clinton and label him as a sex addict during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Morris went on to become a Fox News commentator. Perhaps this is an effect of sex addiction treatment? Democratic White House adviser to Fox News commentator? That’s quite a life change.

The list goes on and on. It also involves many “normal,” lesser-known men who’ve committed crimes, exploiting their positions of power for sexual benefit. In 2015, Idaho college counselor Joseph Bekken was convicted of offering scholarships to young female college applicants, in exchange for sex. Bekken attended “intense therapy” for sex addiction, apparently in hopes of reducing or avoiding his sentence.

Reality show star Josh Duggar was working for a conservative religious advocacy organization when he was exposed in the Ashley Madison scandal, and his history of infidelity was revealed. Multiple trips to sex addiction residential treatment followed and apparently still continue.

Source: Pixabay

What do you notice about all these folks? Well, first, they’re all men. In my years of documenting and investigating the industry of sex addiction treatment, I’ve yet to see a woman try to avoid sex scandal or punishment, by claiming to be a sex addict. I have found women who were shamed for their sexuality and labeled sex addicts, but that’s pretty different and is really just another example of the heteronormative sexual hypocrisy that is embedded in sex addiction theory.

The other thing you might notice here? These are all men in power. Men who become accustomed to using their influence and connections and wealth, feeling that they can “grab women,” and get away with it, because of who they are. Throughout history, men in power have enjoyed sexual privilege, in the form of harems, mistresses, and concubines. Today, that sexual privilege is protected by a new form of privilege: the ability to use a trip to sex addiction treatment as a way to attempt to mitigate and explain one’s reprehensible sexual choices.

It’s fascinating that Weinstein mentioned his “demons.” This hearkens back to the times when inexplicable human behaviors were in fact blamed on demonic possession. And, in those times, people who sinned were made to engage in public acts of repentance, such as wearing a “shame mask,” or a “hair shirt of suffering.” Today, the public repentance involves sex addiction summer camp, in Europe, or the hills of Tennessee, riding horses and ziplines, while doing “adventure therapy.”

Ultimately, these forms of public theater in response to sexual scandals distract us from addressing the cultural and social dynamics that excuse and minimize sexual aggression and misconduct. As long as we allow these farces to continue, we can never demand or expect sexual and moral integrity to continue, as long as they know that claims of sex addiction provide them a “get out of jail card.”

Even Weinstein wasn't that bad: with an exception here or there the slob's "victims" were whores trading sex for movie roles.

Actually, the large number of women who've come out about it pretty much rejected his advances. You might be right, though, in the sense that those who did sleep with him and got roles have kept quiet. But you don't know that, so you're just making that part up.

"Wasn't that bad?" Uh, yeah, not forced rape in most cases. Not sure I want you dating my daughter with that standard of yours.

They were not victims...they were trading sex for roles...nobody forced them.

Actually, they were in any reasonable sense. You're just relying on a rather simple-minded notion that you can only be a "victim" if you're physically forced. He preyed mostly on very young women and worked hard to make them feel that they were the problem, that most others conformed and slept with him, etc. Many of these women were in a state of confusion and panic at the time -- apparently you didn't read any of the accounts? Because what you're saying is bald nonsense. In the vast majority of over a dozen cases, they refused any physical involvement.

wrote:

Their own greed fed off his lust.

Your understanding of a young woman's emotional state in many of these situations is close to ZERO.

wrote:

Now they cry because they are exposed as phonies too.

You sound like the typical clueless guy at the bar with a chip on his shoulder towards women.

No you don't -- not any better than the rest of us. Or tell us the source of your "superior insight" into human nature that the rest of us don't have.

wrote:

The casting couch is a trope a century old.

And so why tell us what we already know? Is this your "superior insight"?

wrote:

It's my belief the ones accusing Slobstein of "rape" were found to have willingly traded favors for film and needed to save face.

Now think about that for a moment. How does claiming rape "save face"? Especially if nobody knew in the first place that you did anything with the guy? I'm waiting for your insightful explanation that demonstrates your understanding of human emotions that's a little bit more sophisticated than your vacuous notion that "women are just greedy".

wrote:

Rumors of vast networks of pedophile directors and studio heads have been circulating for years. Corey Feldman to this day refuses to name names, but claims his dead pal Corey Haim was abused.

And how is that even remotely relevant? Is this an example of your "keen reasoning"? Is this your simpe-minded way of saying Weinstein's women's experiences "weren't that bad"? Heck, it wasn't genocide, so no problem, right?

...tell us the source of your "superior insight" into human nature that the rest of us don't have.

>>>>> I made no such claim (though it's true). I know people are not naturally good. Always assume the worst and you'll rarely be surprised.

wrote:

How does claiming rape "save face"?

Because it returns women to their default status: never taking responsibility for anything. :D

wrote:

I'm waiting for your insightful explanation that demonstrates your understanding of human emotions that's a little bit more sophisticated than your vacuous notion that "women are just greedy".

I never said women were greedy, just eternal children.

wrote:

And how is that even remotely relevant? Is this an example of your "keen reasoning"? Is this your simpe-minded way of saying Weinstein's women's experiences "weren't that bad"? Heck, it wasn't genocide, so no problem, right?

>>>> Compared to the degenerate behavior permeating hollywarp, Swinestein is one of hundreds abusing their power and nothing special. He's lucky he wasn't exposed as a ephebophile, though that, too, may be coming to light.

>>>>> I take offense more at the phony, virtue-signaling outrage of those who enabled his deviant behavior.

How does claiming rape "save face"?
Because it returns women to their default status: never taking responsibility for anything. :D

You're not very good at divining emotions and motivations. It's shaming for women to come out like that. You've already implied criticism for women NOT coming out about Weinstein, so now you say they DO come out to selfishly take "no responsibility".

So you say women who got raped and come out about it don't want to accept responsibility? So you're essentially saying that getting raped was their fault? Or that they're lying. Great stuff you're making up. You might as well be Weinstein's spokesman!

wrote:

I never said women were greedy, just eternal children.

Eternal children? Uhm, they're getting college degrees in much greater numbers than men now, and far fewer of them are going to jail? Your patronizing male attitude is a real laugh.

wrote:

Compared to the degenerate behavior permeating hollywarp, Swinestein is one of hundreds abusing their power and nothing special. He's lucky he wasn't exposed as a ephebophile, though that, too, may be coming to light.

Nothing illegal about being an ephebophile. Maybe you need to look up that word. And even when it's someone underage, the word only means what you like, not what you do.

wrote:

I take offense more at the phony, virtue-signaling outrage of those who enabled his deviant behavior.

A lot of it is not phony. It's genuine outrage. I guess your theory is that just because some people were cowed into silence, any complaining after that about something real is just "phony"?

Seems you have a lot of phony, thoughtless, and patronizing attitudes yourself that you need to examine.

">>>>>> It's my belief the ones accusing Slobstein of "rape" were found to have willingly traded favors for film and needed to save face."

The majority of rape allegations turn out to be accurate. You don't sound too smart.

You join an long line of old fossils who claim that women really mean "yes" when they say "no", they asked for it because they were wearing sexy outfits, and other nonsense believed by socially backward groups in the mideast that throw gays off rooftops, etc.

I don't disagree, but thanks to feminism moving the goalposts, a woman can have consensual intercourse and the next morning claim it was rape. Google "Mattress Girl" as an example.

wrote:

You join an long line of old fossils who claim that women really mean "yes" when they say "no", they asked for it because they were wearing sexy outfits, and other nonsense believed by socially backward groups in the mideast that throw gays off rooftops, etc.

Ironically I'm giving women more credit than you. Most women know when they're dressing provocatively to manipulate men and know what being invited to "discuss matters" in a hotel room really means.

but thanks to feminism moving the goalposts, a woman can have consensual intercourse and the next morning claim it was rape. Google "Mattress Girl" as an example.

Uh huh, I wasn't born yesterday. My statement remains UNCHANGED -- false rape allegations are uncommon. They do happen, but they are not the common thing. And, actually, thanks to feminism, many more real rape situations are taken seriously than false allegations pop up.

wrote:

Ironically I'm giving women more credit than you. Most women know when they're dressing provocatively to manipulate men

Oh, so a man "can't help himself" because of the a woman dresses? I smell rape mentality. LOL

wrote:

and know what being invited to "discuss matters" in a hotel room really means.

You really are seriously clueless. It's been stated over and over again that he had meetings all the time in motel rooms.

wrote:

Even Swinestein deserves a fair trial.

Yeah, well up until this point, he wasn't getting a fair treatment in the sense that he was getting away with it.

know what being invited to "discuss matters" in a hotel room really means.

Again, he had meetings in hotel rooms all the time. But if you didn't give him a massage, or refused to meet him, not only did you not get business, but his cronies would leak out bad stuff about you and ruin your reputation even beyond what it already was. Which is pressure that you don't seem to understand because it's far beyond just "caving to greed". It's outright fear of what could happen to you if you didn't "cooperate". Not just greed.

You aren't really demonstrating very much insight into the emotions and motivations of the people involved.

How can Ley condemn Sex Addiction therapy when it can really help people who humbles (which in these cases isn't easy to accomplish) themselves to admit their bad behaviour and seek help?! He's very judgemental which doesn't help anybody to come out in the light! How can he work as a psychologist with this moralistic condenscending and derogatory attitude!

David Ley speaks against pseudoscience. Sexual addiction is not endorsed by the American Psychological Association and is not in the DSM-5. When you call something an addiction, it becomes dangerous. I have a history of substance abuse. I went to a place that treated sexual addiction. They attempted to label me as a sexual addict. It would have had big implications for my job. There were no complaints about me. If some people are helped, great. I have never found empirical data on the effects of 12 step based therapy on sexual issues. In fact, probably one of the best therapies, an SSRI, is not part of 12 step sexual addiction recovery. Dr. Ley has helped people unravel the shame based on the label. From my experience, labelling sex as addiction can be very harmful.

A load of generalizing and nonchalant crap! Even if some people might be hypocrites it obviously doesn't mean that there aren't people who suffer under true problems. I would definitely never consult such a heartless and arrogant "psychologist".

That Ted Haggard was sent to treatment wasn't specifically because of beeing gay but as a christian having a relationship outside the marriage. But how Ley is stuck by the fix idea to promote homosexuality shows his preferences...
Ley seem to be very fond of punishment for somebody doing wrong; "let the one without sin cast the first stone"! He hasn't thought that these treatment camps might actually help to correct them?!

...is when women send out sexual signals to men when they have no actual desire to give the man sex or any sexual interest in him whatsoever, but simply want him to do their bidding.

That is what real sexual harassment is: women manipulating the sexual nature of men for favors. It happens every day to pretty well every man in any “female liberation” nation. For most men it happens all day long.

These same women say, “Just because we dress like whores doesn’t mean we are whores” – then why the @#! are you dressed like one? What are you doing, purposefully stimulating men sexually, if you don’t mean to gain something by doing so?

...is when women send out sexual signals to men when they have no actual desire to give the man sex or any sexual interest in him whatsoever, but simply want him to do their bidding.

Apparently you share the same views as the men in a number of middle-east religious societies who throw gays off rooftops, stone women for adultery, etc. Yes, obviously, women who dress in a sexy way are just "asking for it", so if they get raped it's because the man "can't help himself". Are you really seriously into that crap?

wrote:

That is what real sexual harassment is: women manipulating the sexual nature of men for favors. It happens every day to pretty well every man in any “female liberation” nation. For most men it happens all day long.

And you do realize, don't you, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And that some of your fellow men who are gay don't see what you see - at all, for example?

And you understand, don't you, that it also has to do with what you're used to. So people from the mideast who share your attitude on this topic, apparently, think that any woman who isn't covered head-to-toe in black garb, with only small slits for her eyes, is deliberately "teasing men" and thefore "just asking for it", and "driving men crazy".

wrote:

These same women say, “Just because we dress like whores doesn’t mean we are whores” – then why the @#! are you dressed like one? What are you doing, purposefully stimulating men sexually, if you don’t mean to gain something by doing so?

Hey, fossil man, women are free to dress as they want. If you can't take it, put on blinders like horses have. Learn to control yourself and keep your business in your pants. Not really all that hard to do. Like Samantha Bee said in her humorous dialog Wednesday night, it's not hard to get up in the morning, go to work, and NOT masturbate in front of our co-workers.

"If you can't take it, put on blinders..." You're very one-sided: smart women should know how to dress not to get harassed for their own sake (no matter how much we think it's wrong to abuse them)!

You didn't get the memo. OK, you're right to some degree, because we all live by certain cultural contexts, but the problem is those contexts are not seen the same by anybody. And today, your claim of "bias" is a bit out-of-date, and you apparently didn't get the memo because it smacks of "blaming the woman" for getting raped. This is the excuse the immigrant rapists are using for attacking women in Europe because they come from countries where women were dressed head-to-to in black garb, and so they see western women as "just asking for it" when they walk around with their faces uncovered.

So by what standard do you mean women "should know how to dress"? Or are you saying the mideastern immigrant gets a "pass" and the woman is partially to blame for not wearing a black burka?

And what about women at the beach? I guess bikinis are out because they "stimulate the men too much" and a lot of men just "can't help themselves".

You do have a point in terms of advice to give your daughter, perhaps, but you've also got to realize the cultural difficulty here with what you think is "practical advice" in a multicultural society. Or you're going to have to advise women to all wear black garb head-to-toe so they don't get harassed by immigrant men. I'm guessing in that case that you can't follow your own advice, can you? Got the memo now? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the woman.

You also need to understand that that in the long run, culturally, it's what you cover up that becomes sexualized, not what you expose. So that's why mideastern men are turned on by a woman showing just the lower part of her leg, or just her face -- because that was "secret". Go to countries like Sweden and places where topless sunbathing is common and men their don't bat an eye. See? The long-term result is the OPPOSITE of what you'd expect. It's a complicated issue.

"Go to countries like Sweden and places where topless sunbathing is common and men their don't bat an eye..." That's not true, I'm myself from Sweden and people can be teased or even approached here for having overly sexy dressing! Furthermore it's different on a beach where it is allowed in some places! Besides it sounds you lack respect towards people from some specific cultures.
YOU only got half of MY "memo": I'm not giving men any free pass, I mentioned it's wrong to abuse women (within my brackets), but I'm talking from the womens point of view, how to secure themselves to the extent it's reasonable.
(An advice to you: wright shorter next time if you want to be read!)

"Go to countries like Sweden and places where topless sunbathing is common and men their don't bat an eye..." That's not true,

Actually, it is true.

wrote:

I'm myself from Sweden

I've lived in Sweden. You say you're from Sweden? Then quickly tell me what is the distinctive sound and name of the southern swedish accent? And what is the distinctive part of the Gothenburg accent and an example which highlights it? And what is the iconic horse that is associated with Sweden.

wrote:

and people can be teased or even approached here for having overly sexy dressing!

Well, genius, yes, Swedes aren't from another planet. You apparently missed my point totally, which is that cultural norms with regard to what is sexy is relative. Now go back and read it again and try to understand what I wrote with that hint. And so that makes it difficult in a multicultural society to "dress so that you don't get harassed". And if know anything about Sweden's current immigrant situation, if you don't see that as a very current issue there, you're clueless.

wrote:

YOU only got half of MY "memo": I'm not giving men any free pass, I mentioned it's wrong to abuse women (within my brackets),

No, I got the full memo and saw your comment, in full, and fully comprehended it. And my point STANDS 100%. You will quickly get into trouble in almost any public dialog on this issue if you suggest as part of the "solution" that women should dress more "smartly". Period. Now, it's good advice to give a woman privately in terms of wisdom, but you're a bit socially clueless in the dialog if you bring it up as part of the "solution". It very quickly invites a strong commentary from a lot of people who could validly interpret your comment to say that women "bear some degree of responsibility". And if you don't get that, you are a bit clueless to that very sensitive nuance. That was my only point.

wrote:

but I'm talking from the womens point of view, how to secure themselves to the extent it's reasonable.

I fully understood that long ago.

wrote:

(An advice to you: wright shorter next time if you want to be read!)

Yeah, because you have trouble reading? And you apparently don't understand nuances such as the point you missed here?

Women also have responsibility; you don't care about the mens situation at all, probably you are a feministic extremist!
You're judgemental and lack empathy who don't understand that men/women who don't hurt others can still suffer from the tempting teasing of someone who exposes themselves in an inappropriate way, since society is over sexualized.
"And you do realize, don't you, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And that some of your fellow men who are gay don't see what you see - at all, for example?" (as you wrote to Plumber) -You're ridiculous: gay men have nothing to do with this, since they don´t have any sexual interest in women! I totally got your point and you're totally blind who don't see that I partly did agree, but after your last comment, when I see your arrogance and intellectual dishonesty that make you totally illogical and inconsistent, I hereby cancel all communication with you. Since you seem to be a rude loner with nothing better to do than to argue just for the sake of arguing, I can nothing but despise you. I realize that you weren´t interested in any constructive dialogue at all but just to tear down any opponent like the rebellious person you are! I will not come here again and read your posts nor will I post any replies myself! Du saknar helt grundläggande förmåga att analysera korrekt och missar därför fortfarande min poäng! Bye

If you were from Sweden then you would know that it has the highest rape rate of all Western countries.

You might want to check a few facts before mindlessly pecking at your keyboard.

Not sure who you're trying to lecture, but as one of the posters here I know exactly what I'm pecking on my keyboard about because I've been in Scandinavia many times and speak several of the dialects there fluently, and currently own several properties there, while living permanently in the US. The point here is not really related to Sweden's very recent problems, of which I am extremely aware.